CVE-2018-25278 in PicaJet FX
Summary
by MITRE • 04/27/2026
PicaJet FX 2.6.5 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows local attackers to crash the application by submitting oversized input to registration fields. Attackers can paste a 6000-byte buffer into the Registration Name and Registration Key fields via the Help menu's Register PicaJet dialog to trigger an application crash.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 05/25/2026
This vulnerability in PicaJet FX 2.6.5 represents a classic buffer overflow condition that falls under the category of improper input validation and lacks proper bounds checking mechanisms. The flaw manifests when the application processes user input in the registration name and registration key fields without implementing adequate size limitations or input sanitization measures. The specific trigger involves pasting a 6000-byte buffer into these fields through the Help menu's Register PicaJet dialog, which causes the application to crash due to memory corruption. This type of vulnerability aligns with CWE-121, which describes stack-based buffer overflow conditions, and CWE-787, which covers out-of-bounds write operations. The attack vector is classified as local since it requires physical access or user interaction within the application environment, making it a privilege escalation concern that could potentially be leveraged by malicious insiders or attackers who have already gained system access.
The operational impact of this denial of service vulnerability extends beyond simple application instability, as it can disrupt legitimate user workflows and potentially provide a foothold for more sophisticated attacks. When the application crashes, users lose access to the software functionality and may experience data loss or corruption if the crash occurs during critical operations. From an attacker perspective, this vulnerability demonstrates a lack of defensive programming practices and proper error handling mechanisms within the application's input processing pipeline. The vulnerability can be exploited through the graphical user interface element, making it accessible to attackers who may not possess advanced technical skills. This aligns with ATT&CK technique T1203, which covers legitimate user privileges to gain access to systems through software exploitation, and T1499, which covers network denial of service attacks through application-level vulnerabilities. The specific implementation flaw suggests inadequate memory management practices and missing input validation routines that should be standard in modern software development lifecycle processes.
Mitigation strategies for this vulnerability should focus on implementing comprehensive input validation and boundary checking mechanisms within the application's registration processing code. The most effective immediate solution involves adding size limitations to the registration name and registration key fields, ensuring that inputs are properly bounded before processing. Developers should implement proper buffer management techniques including the use of safe string handling functions and memory allocation routines that prevent buffer overflows. The application should also include robust error handling and graceful degradation mechanisms that prevent crashes when malformed input is encountered. Security hardening measures should include input sanitization that strips or limits excessive characters, and the implementation of defensive programming practices such as stack canaries and address space layout randomization. Additionally, regular code reviews and static analysis should be conducted to identify similar patterns of inadequate input validation that could lead to comparable vulnerabilities. The fix should also incorporate automated testing procedures including fuzz testing to verify that the application can properly handle inputs of various sizes and formats without crashing. Organizations should also consider implementing application whitelisting and privilege separation techniques to limit the potential impact of such vulnerabilities, while ensuring that proper logging and monitoring capabilities are in place to detect exploitation attempts.